European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22870/10
Jarmila KŘENKOVÁ and Others
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS

1.  The application was submitted by seven applicants, whose particulars appear in the appendix to this decision. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Rojček, a lawyer practising in Zilina.

2.  In 1998 the applicants’ legal predecessors, two individuals, lodged an action with the Čadca District Court seeking a judicial ruling declaring that they were the owners of a house situated in Vysoká nad Kysucou.

3.  In the course of the ensuing proceedings the applicants’ legal predecessors died and the applicants entered the proceedings in their stead.

4.  In a judgment (nález) of 8 September 2009 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time in the above-mentioned proceedings, ordered that the matter be proceeded with without undue delay and awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage, as well as reimbursement of their legal costs.

5.  On an unspecified date the proceedings were concluded with final and binding effect on the ground that the house in question had burned down and the proceedings had thereby lost their subject-matter.

COMPLAINT

6.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that despite the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 8 September 2009 their civil rights and obligations had still not been determined.

THE LAW

7.  On 12 April 2011 the Court received a letter dated 8 April 2011 from the applicants’ lawyer informing the Court that in view of the facts referred to in paragraph 5 above the applicants wished that the application be withdrawn.

8.  The Court takes note that the applicants do not wish to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols does not require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

9.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants